U.S. Constitution One Nail Closer To Burial
Today, January 12, 2007, another nail was violently placed into the coffin of the U.S. Constitution, not with a hammer, but with a judge’s gavel. United States District Judge Jimm L. Hendren, U. S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas presided over the staged trial of Hollis Wayne Fincher, a member of the Washington County Militia (WCM) for illegally possessing unregistered weapons. Fincher was found guilty.
In true kangaroo fashion the government illegally and unconstitutionally conceived, constructed and carried out its crime against Fincher.
The conception began with the government infringing on the Second Amendment right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. They illegally, and with no regard for the U.S. Constitution, passed a law that says Americans can only possess certain weapons if they first register them and pay an arms tax. Contrary to a clearly enumerated constitutional right, ignoring the Constitution, they restricted (infringed upon) the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Their action should be binding upon no law abiding American citizen. - "A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice
Those that conceived the attack upon Fincher and the U.S. Constitution have become so inflated with their own preconceptions of what the Second Amendment means that they ignore those who truly knew its meaning. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833 – Justice Story is known as one of the Fathers of American Jurisprudence
The construct of the government’s case was… bizarre at best. The BATF was notified many years ago that Fincher possessed “prohibited” firearms – and took no action. The BATF then, on their own admission, recently began an investigation of Fincher months after learning through a local newspaper report that he and the WCM had “illegal” weaponry. Months after…(?) After learning of such a dangerous crime and obvious threat to the United States, it took months, to begin the investigation…(?)
The BATF then investigated Fincher for eight months - to learn what they could have learned in fifteen minutes on the website of the WCM or within a couple of minutes by attending a single regular WCM meeting. Did they feel that the length of time would somehow legitimatize their actions?
The carrying out of the crime against Fincher, and the Constitution itself, was a conspired work of art. The apparent and obvious collusion and orchestration in this case between Federal Magistrate Beverly Jones, Judge Jimm L. Hendren, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the BATF in inflating and fabricating the case against Fincher demonstrates a level of corruption that should be chilling for all Americans. These individuals and members of those agencies have willfully and deliberately set aside and ignored the U.S. Constitution to pursue their own agendas.
Since they were launching a full fledged attack upon the U.S. Constitution the government’s players had to make a mountain out of a molehill. A very dramatic no-knock warrant was served on Fincher’s home by eight law enforcement agencies – confirming only that Fincher was an American citizen in possession of firearms. Fraudulent testimony was offered, painting Fincher as a dangerous man, with the BATF and Federal Magistrate Jones conjuring up a paranoiac and dishonest fear of Fincher and the WCM resulting in their violating Fincher’s protected right to a reasonable bail.
Then… we have the trial.
The question before the court was whether or not a law abiding citizen, as protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2 Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Arkansas, can legally possess weapons arbitrarily singled out by federal statute as not legally possessed unless they are registered with the federal government and a $200/weapon tax is paid. Simply stated: Are the U.S. Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution in full force and effect as the law of the land and do they mean what they so clearly say…?
In a classic demonstration of judicial tyranny, Hendren prohibited Fincher from raising a constitutional defense and freely testifying on his own behalf. Hendren struck down Fincher’s ability to argue the constitutional context of the alleged crime in front of the jury, insulating the law Fincher was accused of violating and then censored Fincher from telling the jury, in his own words, his (Fincher’s) motive and intent for committing the act he was being charged with. When a law is insulated from deliberative scrutiny; you can be sure that those insulating it know it cannot bear that scrutiny.
Hendren, relying on an ignorant, uninformed and constitutionally illiterate jury pool, egregiously denied the jury seated for Fincher from hearing any testimony regarding the offending law as being a clear usurpation of the Constitution. Not only was this an offense against Fincher, but also a deliberate judicial infringement by Hendren on the rights of the jury. In the words of America’s first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice -"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4) and "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." - Theophilus Parsons (2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p. 267) - (Parsons was a leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams' nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts).
The results of this governmental abuse of power are the tragedies of an innocent man in jail, his family broken-hearted and the abusers celebrating their contrived victory.
This case truly has never been about the law, evidence and justice. If it had, Fincher would have remained a free man and would have been found not guilty by the jury.
My final word:
To those who are unwilling to stand against the government in this case, I say with all sincerity – I pray that your complacency and apathy will result in your suffering a similar persecution. May your personal legacy be remembered as one of cowardice and shame, and may your descendants rightly find you to be without honor and consider you to be a disgrace upon your family’s name.
In true kangaroo fashion the government illegally and unconstitutionally conceived, constructed and carried out its crime against Fincher.
The conception began with the government infringing on the Second Amendment right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. They illegally, and with no regard for the U.S. Constitution, passed a law that says Americans can only possess certain weapons if they first register them and pay an arms tax. Contrary to a clearly enumerated constitutional right, ignoring the Constitution, they restricted (infringed upon) the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Their action should be binding upon no law abiding American citizen. - "A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice
Those that conceived the attack upon Fincher and the U.S. Constitution have become so inflated with their own preconceptions of what the Second Amendment means that they ignore those who truly knew its meaning. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833 – Justice Story is known as one of the Fathers of American Jurisprudence
The construct of the government’s case was… bizarre at best. The BATF was notified many years ago that Fincher possessed “prohibited” firearms – and took no action. The BATF then, on their own admission, recently began an investigation of Fincher months after learning through a local newspaper report that he and the WCM had “illegal” weaponry. Months after…(?) After learning of such a dangerous crime and obvious threat to the United States, it took months, to begin the investigation…(?)
The BATF then investigated Fincher for eight months - to learn what they could have learned in fifteen minutes on the website of the WCM or within a couple of minutes by attending a single regular WCM meeting. Did they feel that the length of time would somehow legitimatize their actions?
The carrying out of the crime against Fincher, and the Constitution itself, was a conspired work of art. The apparent and obvious collusion and orchestration in this case between Federal Magistrate Beverly Jones, Judge Jimm L. Hendren, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the BATF in inflating and fabricating the case against Fincher demonstrates a level of corruption that should be chilling for all Americans. These individuals and members of those agencies have willfully and deliberately set aside and ignored the U.S. Constitution to pursue their own agendas.
Since they were launching a full fledged attack upon the U.S. Constitution the government’s players had to make a mountain out of a molehill. A very dramatic no-knock warrant was served on Fincher’s home by eight law enforcement agencies – confirming only that Fincher was an American citizen in possession of firearms. Fraudulent testimony was offered, painting Fincher as a dangerous man, with the BATF and Federal Magistrate Jones conjuring up a paranoiac and dishonest fear of Fincher and the WCM resulting in their violating Fincher’s protected right to a reasonable bail.
Then… we have the trial.
The question before the court was whether or not a law abiding citizen, as protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2 Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the Sovereign State of Arkansas, can legally possess weapons arbitrarily singled out by federal statute as not legally possessed unless they are registered with the federal government and a $200/weapon tax is paid. Simply stated: Are the U.S. Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution in full force and effect as the law of the land and do they mean what they so clearly say…?
In a classic demonstration of judicial tyranny, Hendren prohibited Fincher from raising a constitutional defense and freely testifying on his own behalf. Hendren struck down Fincher’s ability to argue the constitutional context of the alleged crime in front of the jury, insulating the law Fincher was accused of violating and then censored Fincher from telling the jury, in his own words, his (Fincher’s) motive and intent for committing the act he was being charged with. When a law is insulated from deliberative scrutiny; you can be sure that those insulating it know it cannot bear that scrutiny.
Hendren, relying on an ignorant, uninformed and constitutionally illiterate jury pool, egregiously denied the jury seated for Fincher from hearing any testimony regarding the offending law as being a clear usurpation of the Constitution. Not only was this an offense against Fincher, but also a deliberate judicial infringement by Hendren on the rights of the jury. In the words of America’s first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice -"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4) and "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." - Theophilus Parsons (2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p. 267) - (Parsons was a leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams' nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts).
The results of this governmental abuse of power are the tragedies of an innocent man in jail, his family broken-hearted and the abusers celebrating their contrived victory.
This case truly has never been about the law, evidence and justice. If it had, Fincher would have remained a free man and would have been found not guilty by the jury.
My final word:
To those who are unwilling to stand against the government in this case, I say with all sincerity – I pray that your complacency and apathy will result in your suffering a similar persecution. May your personal legacy be remembered as one of cowardice and shame, and may your descendants rightly find you to be without honor and consider you to be a disgrace upon your family’s name.
posted by Dale Morfey at 3:56 PM
4 Comments:
We have had seventy-three years to overturn the NFA of 1934. As it has not been struck down, it is most likely the case that it is the actual and real will of the people that these weapons be regulated. Mr. Fincher broke the law - and he is suffering the consequences. To ignore the law is to open ourselves to the charge of extremism. To win, we have to do what the left has done: go to law school and get judgeships. I am heartened that it appears that this is beginning to happen.
Does this really surprise you? Over the last ten years our civil rights have been increasingly eroded. Look at the smoking laws, whether you agree with them or not it is not illegal to smoke. Now we have the fat nazis beginning their tirade against law abiding citizens. No one has done anything about either one of these.
No one can discern that the erosion of one liberty creates the ability to erode another. In fact, I have come to understand that until it effects a persons pocket book they don't care. No one wants to rock the boat. They simply don't want to put themselves or their comfortable lives on the line for anything.
It is not a consitutional question for most people, it's not even a moral issue anymore. It comes down to what directly effects them and whether or not that will cost them any "discomfort."
Been there, done that...didn't even get the t-shirt.
voolfie - Despite what you may or may not perceive as the "will of the people", you neglect to acknowledge the Constitution as being the highest law of the land.
If "the will of the people" is to be your standard, then you should at least require the people to properly amend the Constitution to make that "will" lawful.
A federal law in conflict with the Constitution does NOT negate the Constitution and should not be tolerated by any American - period.
Extremism in the defense of the Constitution, is no vice...
ibcaskme - Even if it appears impossible... we cannot tire doing what is right, and/or supporting those doing what is right.
Never give up!
Post a Comment
<< Home